This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I'm no US constitutional scholar, like the President supposedly is, but it's my understanding that he has been elected to two terms as President and therefore he cannot stand for election to any position that may lead to a third term as President.

I'll stand by to be corrected.

I should have read further.....you beat me to it

I find it amusing that two Canadians are correcting Americans on their own constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see anyone suggesting such. Nixon was not innocent. Barack "Hussein" Obama's crimes are just worse. If Obama were a republican with a democrat controlled congress, he would be facing impeachment proceedings now.

Yeah that's why the Republican controlled House passed all sorts of impeachment proceedings.

I really don't think there would be half as many conservatives if it weren't for the persecution complex.

The 12th amendment is pretty clear that anyone no longer eligible to run for president cannot run for vice president. I do not see anything in the 22nd amendment that would invalidate that.

I think there's a subtle difference that you are disregarding. The Twenty-Second Amendment says…

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

It doesn't say that such a person is ineligible to be President again, only that he is ineligible from being elected President. I just don't see anything in this wording that prohibits him from being elected to any other position, which would put him in the line of succession to the Presidency, nor of assuming the Presidency if those ahead of him in that line are unable to do so.

And the Twelfth Amendment does not say, as you claim it does, that one who is ineligible to run for President, or to be elected President cannot run for Vice President. It says that “…no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

You are assuming that being ineligible to be elected President means that one is ineligible to hold the office of President. Your assumption seems logical on its face, but given that there are other ways to become President than by being directly elected into that position, the wording of the Constitution just does not support this assumption.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Of course. Because Nixon was a Republican, which in your mind means he is incapable of doing anything bad.

I certainly would not claim that. Yes, he did something bad, for which he rightfully was compelled to resign. If he didn't resign, he should have been impeached and removed from office.

What is striking is that the two most recent Democratic Presidents have engaged openly in far broader and more serious corruption than anything of which Nixon was ever credibly accused, and have not been held nearly as accountable for their misdeeds as Nixon was. And now we have a credible Candidate for President, who, when her husband was President, was party to much of his corruption.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

I don't see anyone suggesting such. Nixon was not innocent. Barack "Hussein" Obama's crimes are just worse. If Obama were a republican with a democrat controlled congress, he would be facing impeachment proceedings now.

He'd have been impeached and removed from office by now; probably during his first term.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Of course. Because Nixon was a Republican, which in your mind means he is incapable of doing anything bad.

You have to admit, if modern day Hillary Clinton was back in Nixon's time and she deleted scads of her emails - let's substitute tapes, since emails didn't exist back then, she'd have been strung up and serving time in prison. Nixon retained all his damning recorded evidence and several administration officials served time because of it. It's possible, the Washington Post back then wouldn't have been interested in going after a high ranking Democrat, but it was a different time when illegal actions by politicians, once known, weren't just disregarded as politics.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

The 12th amendment is pretty clear that anyone no longer eligible to run for president cannot run for vice president. I do not see anything in the 22nd amendment that would invalidate that.

I agree in regards to his second term. In my opinion trading five murderous Taliban terrorist leaders for a single US military deserter does amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I also agree that his attempt to go around congress with virtual amnesty to illegal immigrants is highly unconstitutional. And Obamacare enacted in his first term is a clear violation of the tenth amendment regardless of the Supreme Court ruling otherwise.

Many might find this a reach, but add in there his failure to respond to the Killings in Benghazi. Sending in the "FBI" to let it fade off the radar was political geneous, but also smacks of giving aid and comfort to the enemy...those "spontaneous demonstrators" are now recruiting and training the guys who have a stronghold there.

Americans seem to want to ignore how much terrorism has grown under this fraud

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So he could never be, say, speaker of the house? That doesn't sound right.

I asked the same question earlier, and it seems likely that he could run for a House seat, could be elected Speaker of the House, but could not move up the ladder to VP if the President or VP were somehow removed from office.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

I asked the same question earlier, and it seems likely that he could run for a House seat, could be elected Speaker of the House, but could not move up the ladder to VP if the President or VP were somehow removed from office.

I do not see anything in the Constitution that prevents that. He is only prevented from directly being elected again to the Presidency.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.